Now I do understand that what gay people are demanding is that the law must recognize gay unions on the same basis as any heterosexual one. I also understand that male-female unions are "traditional" and that law has reflected tradition. So, I ask people all the time: What makes a marriage? Seems to me these are the possible choices: 1.) the law, 2.)the clergyman, 3.) the commitment of the two people involved, 4.) God , or 5.) a combination of these.
If marriage is made by religions, then it doesn't matter what the law says. If marriage is made by the law, it doesn't matter what the religion says. If the marriage is in fact made by God, it doesn't matter whether the law or the religion recognizes them. I've concluded that marriages are made by two people, and then they expect the law to protect that marriage and recognize a union of interests. They expect society to impose certain benefits and obligations upon this union.
If this is so, then, gay people are married when they decide they are and the only question remaining is whether we want our laws to impose upon the union the responsibilities and obligations which are imposed on other such unions, and whether we want our laws to offer protections to the union.
I say, why not?
2 comments:
Your definition of a marriage is quite similar to the definition held by Roman Catholic doctrine, (of course, the assumption of Church doctrine is that a marriage is heterosexual): The Church considers the marriage to be a covenant between two people, with the bride and groom being the ministers of the marriage. (Some Christian denominations, on the other hand, believe the clergyman is the minister.)
The fact that society's civil law also defines marriage -and divorce - is a separate issue for the Catholic church.
This distinction leads to the confusion (among both Catholics and non-Catholics)concerning the issue of "annulments." I would think if the secular world decides to recognize same-sex marriages that shouldn't have any impact on the Catholic Church's definition. For that reason I don't understand why good Catholics should get excited about the issue of same-sex marriage. That's a civil issue - it shouldn't have an impact on the Church's definition.
Thanks for the comments.
I think this is the way I see it, too. For example, those few of us who aren't Catholics can devise our own strategies for authenticity of marriage.
We could, I guess, layer even more levels of approval on top of the state's and the religion's approvals. For example, why not the family? That was once a rigorous requirement. Why not the entrails of goats?
I think we're in agreement about this all, Sparty.
Post a Comment